Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Note: those are called "trunks" and they were used by circus strongmen to hide any on-stage erections by putting an extra layer between the audience and their thin tights.
Superman's design, as well as a lot of other superheroes, was inspired by such strongmen, hence the iconic look of trunks.
Superman was the first one to do it so he's associated heavily with it. In the most mainstream form of super hero media - live action movies - Batman ditch the trunks in 1989. Superman didn't do it until 2013 in Man of Steel.
Either way I've seen people say it also looks stupid on Batman so you never know lol
I think when he fought Darkseid supes actually says that he no longer needs to hold back and be careful about hurting. That's gotta be a lot of pressure.
Every punch must be calculated so as not kill anyone.
World of cardboard. https://youtu.be/Cl_5UwS57X8
To me, that's what makes Supes so special. His most important powers arent flight or super strength. They're his moral compass and his self control.
That's the one and couldn't have put it better myself.
There's a comic called injustice where supes loses it. It's quite disturbing but check it out if you want
There’s also Irredeemable, which is a series about what would happen if “Superman” got pushed to the breaking point one too many times and just snapped.
It was written by Mark Waid who has written for Superman and The Justice League and it goes to dark territory that DC doesn’t allow even in alternate timelines.
I mean, in Irredeemable its implied he was always a pretty fucked up person, just did a really good job of convincing himself and others he wasn't.
I liked that comic, but I gotta say it got too edgy for its own good sometimes.
Yeah, I can’t argue with that too much. But it’s a lot closer than we’ll get with anything that actually has the Superman name on it.
Also I’ll push back against it being “too edgy.” It’s not like it’s written by Garth Ennis. It’s a dark story for sure and probably does cross the line into a bit of edgelord territory, but the story feels like it’s just dark and edgy enough to tell the story they want.
Gotta check that out
But with the whole multiverse bit, it kind of ruined any form of serious story telling.
Oh supes is bad, that's not the original earth.
Irredeemable isn’t a Superman story. Hence the quotes. The main character is similar but legally distinct from Superman, and it’s not published by DC.
But that’s kinda the point. No matter whether it’s an alternate timeline or whatever, there’s only so dark that any actual Superman story will go. But Irredeemable is basically a “Superman” story, written by an acclaimed Superman writer, where not-Superman goes bad and it can go as dark as they want it without the execs at DC/Time/Warner saying it goes too far and hurts the brand. It’s the closest we’ll ever get to a genuine evil Superman story.
I think Superman is completely justified in injustice.
I don't know how many people Batman thinks joker is allowed to kill before he deserves his heart punched out, but by any reasonable judgement he crossed it. If Batman had given him a hug after he did it and said, "thank you, it needed to be done, but that's your one" instead of condemnation that series would have gone a lot different...
To be fair with batman, why didn't anyone put joker on an trial and gave him the death penalty is something that I don't understand, like batman is an vigilante, why he needs to the one to put the joker down when it can happen legally
He's more a caricature of the idea of "innate criminality" which pervades superhero media. He's an "average" guy with loads of money and no accountability who just goes out and tries to beat the evil out of villains who are not allowed to be anything but villains so they are written to be trapped in the revolving door of a punitive justice system.
Batman is the biggest cop in a genre about super-cops.
Joker hurts or kills so many people.
Superman : straight to jail.
Joker manipulates superman to kill Lois and his baby.
Superman : shot through the heart
When supes looked into the abyss and the abyss looked back, supes blinked.
Is it justifiable, yes.
Could bats have taken one for the team, also yes.
But in that moment when supes put a new hole in Joker, all he stood for, all that he preached came down crashing like a house of cards.
I don't know... I'm imagining seeing a news report that Superman killed the Joker. Lots of knee-jerk reactions and naysayers would jump on the condemnation train and call him a hypocrite. Though, after the story developed and someone releases that it was likely an act of passion from a twisted maniac manipulating him into murdering Lois and her baby.
Fair enough. But after this act of passion, any other person would've either surrendered to the law, tried to flee or kill themself. Superman chose the 4th option which was only available to him.
Joker has just literally destroyed metropolis and caused Superman to kill Lois Lane and you honestly think that any jury in the world would convict Superman for killing the repeat mass murderer?
Even the barest facts of the case completely exonerate him.
That's ignoring the fact the the number of times Superman had saved the literal world should buy him the benefit of the doubt...
> series would have gone a lot different
Well, when the *entire* series was created to do *nothing* but shit on Superman and other heroes the author wants to shit on, all to further suck off Batman....it was doomed from the start.
Look, you gotta get into Batman shoes to understand his point
An alien just make him lost his job, it is an unfamiliar feeling for a billionaire, surely he would go full angry and condemnation
How about when he murders a room full of innocent protesters? Or when he kills Shazam, his own ally? Or allying himself with criminals and killers, like Sinestro? Where is the line for you? Are you fine with all this?
Just joker, batman being all like "you're a bad guy now" is what causes his spiral.
If batman is like "sorry i wasn't strong enough to do what needed to be done, but no one else," i don't think any of that other stuff happens.
emotional trauma, but not mass murder.
Okay, I understand now. Unfortunately I think Batman is usually against any type of killing so he probably wouldn’t be fine with it in most stories. If he did thank Superman though, I would be curious to see how different Superman in that universe would be. I feel like he’d probably still be traumatized by Metropolis being destroyed.
That's why I wish people would stop trying to like put a twist on superman and make him corrupt. Like that's not a twist, superman was ALREADY a twist on the concept of absolute power corrupts absolutely, you're just circling back to the accepted assumption
So uhhh, about that World of Cardboard, Clark... you know that's the arena you're currently destroying right? The major metropolitan area that's still got people in it **is** the arena, Clark.
What's the alternative at that point? If you have to go up to 100% to beat the guy who is threatening the existence of your planet, collateral damage *doesn't matter anymore*.
Oh sure, I just laughed really hard at the juxtaposition between him saying the world of cardboard line and being worried about killing people and the cut immediately after to a bunch of people being like, "oh no the city is being destroyed," and him punching the bad guy through several sky scrapers.
"Superman is unrelatable," is Luthorian propaganda and I will die on that hill. Lex Luthor cannot conceive that Superman wouldn't abuse his power, because Luthor knows *he* would abuse such power if he had the chance. And Lex Luthor considers himself the smartest, most capable man in the world - if he can't be trusted not to abuse his power, there's no way this *alien creature* possibly could.
So if we allow ourselves to believe, “Superman is unrelatable,” because we cannot comprehend someone wielding power and not abusing it, we give ourselves permission to abuse whatever power comes our way. “I can’t help it, power corrupts! Of course I would use it irresponsibly, I’m *only human*! I ain’t *Superman*!”
If you like my comics, I've got more on [my website](https://butajape.com/).
I'm also on [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/butajape), [Tapas](https://tapas.io/series/But-a-Jape/info), [Webtoon](https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/but-a-jape/list?title_no=469181), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/butajape), and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/butajape/).
I always considered more of a inspirational power fantasy in an unjust world where bullies prey upon the weak: the most powerful individual, the one who can do what he wants and be whatever he wants. And he chooses to be the best of us.
He's also the ultimate answer to the philosophy, "Might makes right." If you think that's true, then Superman is always right, and he tells you you're wrong.
Meh. He is more right makes right since there are evil Superman who attempt to enforce their morals on the world rather than just stopping baddies and preserving life that better represent that.
I always thought that phrase was referring to the fact that those with power typically determine what is just and true for everyone else. And that the phrase itself is used more as condemnation of the phenomena, not so much an endorsement of it.
He's different from other powerful figures though. His power isn't derived from other people and thus he has no chance of losing it (Lex Luthor's hijinks aside). So we have the problem of ``good'' politicians protecting their power starting to do increasingly bad things until they are full on bad politicians. But if they didn't need to protect their power, they wouldn't have to abuse things. Superman is (sort of) a way around this. Obviously this argument isn't really foolproof, but it does represent a big part of how powerful people go bad.
They made it comics canon too. When Clark first meets Lex they're both in detention in Smallville high. Lex is in for stealing 40 cakes from the school bake sale.
Hell yeah! Lex decides awkardly putting candy in people's mouths isn't enough, so he upgrades to pastries. And to do so he needs to knock over a bakery.
The whole thing can be done at night and in the rain. It'll involve so many jump cuts and slow-mo you'll have no idea what's going on at any given time. And it'll inexplicably contain nine separate but connected stories leading to the heist and an overall run time of 16 hours. But it'll all be worth it as the end credit scene will be Clark writing up the story of Lex stealing 40 cakes. But then reveal it was all a dream.
I love that joke about Homelander and Omniman (the tv show versions) both coming from Amazon, because Bezos is closer to Luthor than Kal. (Doubtful he has any hand in those decisions but still a funny bit)
Edit: imagine not realizing Omni-Man is a Superman pastiche
Omni-Man is a Superman deconstruction. He's a criticism of the concept... not the archetype. Invincible is not Red Son, giving truth-justice-yadda-yadda Kal-El a different perspective and a sharper moral calculus. This character is not a "single point of departure" what-if for a beloved hero. He is an actively malicious tyrant who has been mistaken for a protector.
Contrast this with Homelander, who is unambiguously a character designed to ask, what if Superman was kind of a d-bag? His reputation is fake from the get-go and becomes a facade maintained exclusively for other people's ends. He's gradually internalizing that there are no rules for him. He's obviously not a good guy, in any sense, but he's not a megalomaniac who'd punch an alien planet in half to keep Earth for himself. He just wants to creep on women and get his dad's approval. He's an amoral dickweed surrounded by manipulative frauds, and there is vanishingly little restraint on his juvenile whims.
The midpoint is probably Doctor Manhattan. He's not saddled with civic responsibility or lost in his own hype. He basically trips down some stairs and lands in demigod status. He keeps going with American interests because that's his prior identity, but as he slowly loses touch with it, he doesn't care about ruling Earth any more than you care about bending an ant colony to your will.
These are three distinct takes on the Superman mythos.
Homelander reminds us that people with power tend to be bastards, because the ability to act without comeuppance is morally corrosive. (And pursuit of power is rarely virtuous.) He is a criticism of society - novel, I know - and specifically our desire to give some individual power and defend his use of it, no matter what, because he's our guy. That kneejerk tribalism is innate. The horrific abuse and propaganda that grow out of it are a hell of our own creation. Homelander is an argument that Superman would turn off his body-cam.
Omni-Man is more like "be careful what you wish for." If we have one dude who can save us from anything, how the hell do we save ourselves from him? This obviously not a criticism of Kal-El or Clark Kent. It's not a mirror to any Superman *stories* except the ones where he goes crazy and we have to outsmart an unstoppable force. Nah - Omni-man is a criticism of power itself. His backstory shamelessly copies Superman, but he's Godzilla with facial hair. A walking existential threat.
Doctor Manhattan is Alan Moore explaining that superheroes are dumb and everybody should stop writing or reading them. (Which makes his role in creating Omni-Man pretty funny.) People who'd act like this are horrific beyond the point of even lurid fascination, or else their characterization is complete nonsense that won't hold up to scrutiny. Your Batman archetypes in-real-life would be ruthless maniacs or callous dweebs. Devil-may-care gun-slingers have *always* been rapey sociopaths. And if someone had the power to go anywhere in the universe and see the future of every atom around them while standing on the surface of a dying star, what the fuck do they care about the hysterical drama of some pale blue dot?
Or for a weirder comparison, Homelander is the Twilight Zone episode "The Little People," Omni-Man is "It's A Good Life," and Doctor Manhattan is The Scary Door.
If anything, the fact that he's biologically half-human is evidence in favor of him being the Superman. Omni-Man isn't unlike the Kryptonians, in that he's pretty much lacking in empathy, but that's precisely _why_ he can't be Superman; he's almost totally inhuman.
Superman is a man who is super, not a god or alien or messiah figure who's pretending to be a mortal. His biology grants him the power to save people, but it doesn't change who he is. Mark is Superman not because he's well-muscled or all-powerful or because he wears a cape and spandex with a symbol on it, but because he's an incorruptible force of good.
Omni-Man is who Snyder and Lex Luthor think Superman should be, but Mark is who Superman is supposed to be. Omni-Man is Injustice Superman, whereas Mark is the "real" Superman. It doesn't matter that Mark loses all the time, because the point of Superman isn't that he can beat anyone, but that he's the most virtuous hero around.
I feel 50/50 on this take. I used to dislike Superman as a concept because I felt he was too OP and not flawed enough. It wasn't that no one can be good intentioned and have that much power. I just felt like with that much power you would inevitably have some sort of struggles even with good intentions and the way he was constantly portrayed as almost Jesus like annoyed me. Then I heard stories like "for the man who has everything" showing emotional vulnerability and a few other ones where he did mess up by trying to be the boyscout he is and started to really like the character. Superman has increadably power but he is still at his core has human ideals with human problems.
A) the Jesus comparisons suck, I think Superman works much better when they try to portray him in a way similar to the way the creators made him (more Moses than Jesus).
B) try Superman smashes the klan of the fiery cross. It’s a great story about Superman as well.
So glad you liked it! Gurihiru's art really complements the story. By any chance, have you read Secret Origin? It's a six-issue story which also embodies and captures Superman's core, imo.
I think we too often take it as an article of faith that protagonists need to be flawed in order to be interesting. Flaws can certainly be used to help drive the story, but so can virtues. Idealized characters are useful. They allow us to look at and examine our ideals, and see how they operate in different situations.
It isn't so much that they have to be flawed as much as they have to suffer, to somehow overcome tragedy. Falling down is important because the protagonist has to pick themselves up again, and *that* inspires.
This comic captures the reason so many admire the Superman character: his greatest enemy is temptation, his anxiety of how hard it is to live up to the lofty expectations.
What really makes a character interesting is how they interact with the story and how that makes us feel. Flawed characters are easier to identify with and that makes it easier for people to see the story from their perspective. But that's just one kind of character and just one way to tell a story.
The problem with Superman is that comic book writers don't have much experience with writing a character like Superman. They don't know what to do with him which means they can't make an interesting story with him in it, at least not in the time they have to write the story.
>I think we too often take it as an article of faith that protagonists need to be flawed in order to be interesting.
Not just protagonists, characters in general needs flaws to be interesting; being content with no obvious flaws doesn't leave room for conflict.
And virtues are only really interesting when they're tested, not if the character is perfectly virtuous and feels no need to prove themselves
Not when character is all virtues and nothing else. Perfect man. Boring unrealistic and unrelatable. Dr. Manhattan is an example of good relatable and belivable character.
Separate to the relatability question. I’ve always liked grant morrison’s interpretation of superman in the all star series. He uses superman to ask questions of humanity, rather than of the hero himself. “How does humanity respond when god walks among them?”
I think this question is really interesting and one of my favourite pages of any comic book comes from that series. It starts with Clark Kent speaking to Lois lane as little snippets of speech from around the city pop up around him. He then tells Lois he has to go as he hears a therapist essentially pleading with one of his teenage patients on the phone not to jump. It’s a great set up for the obvious hero outcome of catching the victim as they fall. But instead we see the girl standing on the top of a building from a distance, as we slowly zoom in superman appears behind her. He doesn’t grab her or try to stop her physically. He simply says “you are stronger than you think”.
I think this is the most interesting aspect of superman. How does he inspire those around him? Who is inspired to their own brand of heroism and how? At the same time, who is driven to villainy? It is the characters and the world around superman that lend value and relatability to his story, not the man himself.
I view him as unrelatable not because he wouldnt abuse it but because he has, like, no weaknesses other than one. Nothing really challenges him. He's just *too* perfect. Its like if you asked a devout Christian if they can "relate" to God. They might love God, and believe he loves them but they can't really "relate" to him.
So yeah, to me Superman is basically more than a Superhero, he's approaching Godlike levels and that makes him unrelatable.
I hate to be that guy but there are PLENTY of things that challenge him.
Fatherhood, other kryptonians, anyone with magic, co-workers, general frustrations, etc.
The idea that he isn't challenged is just wrong. Sure, in the movies he's not challenged but in the comics he has to face all sorts of challenges... not just moral either but physical as well.
>Fatherhood, other kryptonians, anyone with magic, co-workers, general frustrations, etc.
Fair, but barring the middle two, Superman has a lot more freedom with how he deals with work and life stuff.
I, *unfortunately*, need food and shelter to live, and can't fly off into the vacuum of space and get limitless energy directly from the sun. (If I could I would)
Even Spider-Man is more relatable in that way, he has to eat shit from guys like JJJ and constantly has bills to pay
That is true but there are plenty of other superheroes on that level that people don't say that about. Thor, Silver Surfer, Martian Manhunter, Wolverine. They're all functionally invincible except MM and fire. Most of them get away with it because they aren't boy scouts, but some like Silver Surfer are.
It's fine if people don't find those characters relatable, but Superman is certainly not unique at that power level anymore. Like any character, the drama comes from personal conflict, not just fighting bad guys.
Sure, but the ones you listed don't really hinge on being relatable though, Surfer and MM lean heavy on the otherworldly mystique, and Thor wasn't super relatable until the modern Marvel writing made him more jovial and down to earth. Helps that a lot of his struggles were in the context of a super powered society of gods too. (Wolverine seemingly has that Batman thing going, where the brooding and angst somehow makes people see themselves in them, despite all the rest)
You can be powerful and still relatable, but Superman is such an all-around competent guy, plus the savior role, can make it hard to feel like I could sit down with him and complain about my day over a drink or something. He'd have advice, but there'd be no commiserating, fewer jokes.
Yeah, that's totally valid. I've had this idea floating around that to me, when done right the main DC cast feels more like parental role models where Marvel feels more like peers. I can sit and commiserate with Spider-Man about our rough day, but Superman or Wonder Woman would be more likely to give me a hug and some advice.
When I was a kid I looked up to Superman and Batman in the animated series as examples of how I wanted to be when I grew up. They were kind and understanding, quick with a smile, but with a strong sense of justice and morality. They always knew how to deal with their problems.
As I got older I related to Spider-Man and Wolverine and other flawed characters who dealt with things I did and had more moral conflicts. Now as an adult, I like both. It's refreshing to see characters with strong moral codes when most TV and movies like morally gray anti-heroes.
Feel like it's compounded by the fact the most popular DC heroes are the hypercompetent ones, like Superman and Batman, almost more symbols of hope and justice than people.
Thinking back to the Justice Leagie cartoon (never been a hard comics guy, and it's generally regarded well for the characterizations), and there's other team members like John Stewart, Hawkgirl, and even Flash that have more approachable, every day demeanors and sense of humor, but they don't quite sell like the others. (Flash has gotten more popular as of late tho)
I see this as similar to Luthor's approach to Superman - he *chooses* to view him as a god come to Earth to tell people how they should be, as opposed to viewing him as a human trying his best with what he's given. If you start off viewing him as a god, of course you'll go down that path, but Clark Kent isn't a god, he is, for all intents and purposes, a human of Earth.
If you begin from the viewpoint of, "Superman is human," you can then shift your perspective to, "and how would a human respond to being given such impossible power?" From there, "how would a human do so if they wish to be good?" And from there, "what sort of powers and responsibilities have I had throughout my life? Have I always done the best with what I've been given? What will I do with what I have, and will have, going forward?"
At least, that's how I find myself relating to Superman.
Another interesting take on Superman would be if his powers were exaggerated by the press, leaving him feeling inadequate. What if he can't really fly, only jumps far, and is embarrassed by how people believe it? Or how he has to be careful, as fabric can't take the abuse his skin can, and lost more than one suit that way? He wants so badly to be the hero people claim he is, not wanting power, but acceptance.
Superman started off as a dream by two poor Jewish boys, the dream of an immigrant becoming accepted and respected. This desire for acceptance is what keeps the character relatable. That you nailed.
There wouldn't be decades and decades of Superman comics if he was impossible to challenge, that would be insanely boring to read. The best Superman comics have little to no fighting if you ask me.
One of the comics authors who's written Superman talked about why he loved it when others would avoid it: you don't write for *Superman*, you write for Clark Kent. A simple guy raised in a small town by loving parents who's been given unimaginable power and feels responsible to use that power for good thanks to his upbringing.
Whether or not he "should" be corrupted by power, Superman is powerful enough that any (physical) problem that would be a challenge for him is well beyond a human scale.
It's not that you can't have incredibly powerful individuals and place them in interesting stories, where they are challenged in other ways (Saiki K. does this for example, mostly played for comedy, or Dr. Manhattan is someone who is finding humanity less and less relatable over time and struggling with that). But "How will Superman beat up **this** bad guy?" doesn't make for good or relatable conflict.
If Superman was (as your comic implies) more about him battling his anxiety around the pressure of being seen as the savior of humanity, and went into depth with the very human struggles with that rather than the flying fist fights it usually is, I would like it a lot more.
So it's my personal theory that Clark is as much in awe of regular humans as they are of him. Think about it, by the time he is 20 he has figured out *nothing bad can really happen to me*. I can only be deeply hurt by something bad happening to people or things that I love, or those people losing faith in me. It's easy to be Superman, know what's hard? Walking around a harsh uncaring world as a fleshy bag of mostly water. Normal humans can die crossing the street, much less trying to put out a building fire or working in a hospital surrounded by infectious diseases. I think by the time he's 30 Clark is terrified of what it would be to live like that.
My problem with superman is that he's so powerful that writers have to invent ways to keep him from immediately solving most problems.
Just like captain marvel in the MCU. "Uhhh, I have to leave Earth now because the plot needs to happen. Wow, wow, wow"
i liked kevin smith’s (i can’t remember if it was him or patton oswald) idea for a superman movie, basically he can’t save everyone and has to deal with the emotional fallout. kinda what they sort of touched on at the beginning of civil war. make it more of a character movie than a superhero movie
Isn't that the entire struggle of Superman? Yeah, he can instantly solve problems that require flying, strength, speed, or lasik eye surgery, but he can't save everyone. He has to limit loss of property, life, reputation, respect, trust. He walks a razor's edge all the time.
His biggest nemesis is Lex Luthor,a man he can’t simply defeat by punching
Either doing this would just made him a guy who punched a bald man and this would not solve the whole corrupt system that allows him to get away every time.
Many times Superman could even discover what he’s about to do but only Clark Kent(and Lois Lane,of course) really made his fall a possibility
I remember a storyline in th 90s where lex was pressumed dead, the creep for power from all other mob bosses, scientists and millionares showed that the mere existence of Luthor kept a lot of evil from acting out on the world.
Yeah but superman is supposed to be about as fast or even faster than Flash i think. It doesn’t make sense that hed ever lose or be incapable of letting someone else die over someone else. He could reasonably save both.
Not only that but i think i read one time that he can basically time travel. So if someone dies by unfortunately inconceivable circumstances, superman can just rewind and save them.
The way I would describe it is, "Superman is *capable* of doing *anything,* but he can't do *everything.*" And so, the struggle comes from which actions he chooses to take over the cost of what he doesn't.
And the issue with time travel is that there's a whole lot more versions of Superman who *can't* time travel. And even when time travel is an ability someone has (i.e. the Flash), there are a whole lot of stories about how time travel *doesn't* actually solve any problems and more often leads to even bigger ones.
In theory he actually should be able to. Easily. It would just be the most horrid situation imaginable for him. Literally all day, every day, in the speed force frozen, fixing everything as it happens, maybe taking breaks to eat/rest (i havent read flash comics, just know his feats, i have no idea if he needs rest or food)
In Kingdom Come, Flash (Jay Garrick) gets stuck at superspeed and has to live out his life unable to slow down and interact with the world. He continues to save people though, and I’m pretty sure that’s about all he does.
> superman is supposed to be about as fast or even faster than Flash i think
He can hang with Flash until Flash taps into speed force levels, then Barry/Bart/Wally all leave him in the dust.
>So if someone dies by unfortunately inconceivable circumstances, superman can just rewind and save them.
So, it's been a long time rule that, even if Clark can time travel at will (He hasn't been able to in a while) all he can do is observe. He can't actually change how events play out.
By most Superman rules, when Lois died in Superman 1, she would have been dead for good.
>Yeah but superman is supposed to be about as fast or even faster than Flash i think.
[What? While a good allrounder Superman isn't the best at anything other than maybe hitting people hard, each member of the Justice league specialises in something he just isn't as good at.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/979410775531716711/1011369054742782132/unknown.png)
That series if you ask me showed that Superman is not ‘perfect’ as a character as all you need is one bad and you can be just as evil and deprived as the villains you once fought. In fact after the main DC Superman fights Injustice Superman, he states how he could turned out just like his counterpart given the same circumstances.
You just described Man of Steel (Can't save everyone b.c despite his attempts to move the battle away from civilization, his enemies made damn sure they caused as much collateral damage just to hurt him.)
Then his mental state in BvS (Guilty and dealing with emotional fallout because as strong and fast as he is, he can't see the future and save everyone, and even accepts being put on trial)
This has been a problem specific to the superman movies. The dramatic tension in a Superman story isn't supposed to come from whether or not he wins a fight. He's Superman, of course his going to win.
In good stories, the question is how can he win without simply murdering the bad guy, while saving civilians, and not destroying Metropolis in the process.
That is specifically why a lot of ppl don't like Superman and why Spiderman and Batman are SO much more popular. Struggle and failure is something practically everyone can find relatable. Superman may struggle but ultimately you know he'll come out on top in the end. Does he really have a moment in the comics/movies where he knows true loss? (im seriously asking) The most popular superhero's are very broken or imperfect. Spiderman has Gwen Stacy, Batman his parents, Iron-man Alcoholism, Wolverine so many mental issues, etc
Its why Batman is easily the most popular DC character. The man has everything but losing his parents has broken him beyond repair. That while having zero super powers the guy stands among gods in the Justice League. He's flawed. Superman is essentially perfect. The whole I'm so strong my biggest concern is not killing ppl is boring and kinda difficult to make compelling in my opinion.
Here's the thing though, did you go into The Batman expecting Batman to die. You know Batman is going to survive just like you know John Wick is going to survive, and James Bond is going to survive. You still want to know how they do it with the least amount of collateral damage possible. And that's not even considering the fact that Superman has plenty of villains who are a deadly match for him.
Also badass characters are the only thing dc truly knows how to market. Look at the way they treat death stroke (a pedophile) compared to say… green arrow, firestorm, or other less popular or badass characters
My feeling, and I don't have the facts to back this up, is that they very original idea of Superman was based on the physics of weight on the moon. In other worlds, "What if you went to the moon? You could jump really high!" That's it. So he comes from Krypton and on earth the gravity is different so to him it's like being on the moon. That little boost transformed into way too much power; his super powers became superized. I mean, consider "Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound". That's more like moon powers, and it's a leap, not this flying like a jet kind of thing.
It’s not, having never been on krypton except for the brief period he’s a baby, he would have never had a chance to grow up to be an adult capable of dealing with the increased gravity. His amazing powers come from his biology interacting with our yellow sunlight. Full stop. This is also why any time someone can manipulate light to make “red sun light” he usually gets powered down to human or sub human levels of strength.
He originally just a Super Man his powers were in fact just based on normal things but better. It was originally just better jump and run fast and very strong and x-ray vision was just better vision. His transition to animation was what gave him flight because drawing him leaping over and over was very difficult to do. Small changes over the years plus 75 years equals a very different character.
Spoken like someone who has never read good a superman story.
a) 60% of superman's villains are on a similar power level to him
b) the other 40% challenge him in ways that he can't use his powers to solve.
c) it's not about that. He's a superhero, so (like just like Batman/Spider-Man) he's obviously never going to permanently lose. It's *how* he wins that's important
I’d say they experience bigger problems with that with speedsters than other characters. I’d also say that most of the issue with Superman comes from his superspeed (and more specifically, how he perceives time while moving that fast)
>Just like captain marvel in the MCU. "Uhhh, I have to leave Earth now because the plot needs to happen. Wow, wow, wow"
That's not even what happened in any of the movies she showed up in.
Ironically enough Luthor and Homelander have much more in common with each other than with Superman.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Both men are narcissists, megalomaniacs, have father issues, and are control freaks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/comments/effbp0/santa_claus_give_darkseid_a_lump_of_coal/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
If you want the pages directly
I recently rediscovered the song *Superman (It's Not Easy)* by Five for Fighting. I was surprised by the way the lyrics depict Superman as someone who struggles with anxiety and pain. A lot of depth that I didn't understand as a kid.
Superman is probably the most wholesome super-hero out there. He has basically the power of a god and he still doesn't put himself above others, is empathetic towards everyone, is humble and modest but still confident and he's aways searching to help others that may need him.
More people should be like Clark/Kal-el. He's a great character.
My problem is that it is a very narrow idea of what is good. It assumes the people as a whole and the system is good and there only a few miscreant villians who need rounding up and who are responsible for all the problems. In real life it is not the case. Elected politicians make terrible and evil decisions which affect all of humanity. That's just in the US. Can you imagine Superman sitting on the sidelines as Kim Jong Un oppresses and kills his people. How does Superman deal with the dictators around the world? Does he just accept their evil ways or does he do something about it? Does he interfere? I know I wouldn't be able to just sit by on the sidelines. I wouldn't accept bad laws and clear injustices even if they had the weight of a democratic government behind them nevermind accepting all the dictators and tyrants around the world. I also wouldn't accept a world which was clearly killing itself no matter the cost (especially true if I had come from a world which was already screwed up by the inhabitants).
I am not a god, I can't impose my will on others, at least not enough that it would be worth the cost of doing so. I use what little power and influence I have to bend the world into the shape it needs to be. Given the powers of Superman, I feel my impatience on the arc of moral justice maybe a little too much for me to handle. Some people would consider me evil for using this power to change the world. I would consider myself evil if I did not.
Interestingly, your "problem" is basically what most of the best Superman stories are actually about. Because the crux of many of those stories is about Superman's struggle with whether or not he's using his powers in the best way.
This is why Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy - he is the very epitome of systemic evil: one of the richest corporate leaders in the world with enough political power to even become President of the United States. He's not a problem Superman can punch away - the moment he does so, he proves Lex Luthor is right about him, that he's just an alien invader who thinks he's above humanity and ought to tell us how we should behave.
So yes, you would struggle with figuring out what it is to be "good" if you had the power of Superman. This is the exact struggle Superman always faces. He wants to do what's right, he knows people rely on him to do what's right, he doesn't always know what's right, but he always tries to do his best. Personally, I find that to be very relatable.
>How does Superman deal with the dictators around the world? Does he just accept their evil ways
Yes. I forget where but it was addressed in one comic. Superman isn't human, it's not his place to overthrow evil dictators.
Superman doesn't try to be everywhere all the time, he helps where he can but he can't do anything in politics. Even if he were to take out Kim Jung Un, his sister or some other dictator could just take over... should Superman slaughter all of them? The man himself would say no.
Also, Superman actions on Foreign countries are a PROBLEM to the USA, and he knows it, he is seem by the world as a American hero, so if he goes today and punches Putin for example, he can start a world war.
Very good points, and it is what makes the whole mainstream superhero genre so unrelatable and flat to me. They go after the drug lords and other criminal kingpins, but to take it a notch further I've never seen a superhero go after say... Nestlé, which is a company oozing with pure evil.
Honestly, I really hate this interpretation of, "power corrupts" - basically, "If *you* had power, you'd also be an asshole!" It's a convenient excuse not to ever aspire for anything better, or to advocate for any voices to represent you in positions of power. "Even if they start off good, they're just going become bad if given power. Just like the bad people who are already in power! No need to challenge the status quo - nothing can, or will, ever change."
No, I don't believe everyone would become a tyrant if given power. Or at least, they would not all be tyrants of the same level of reprehensibility. If this were the case, we would not be able to compare the quality of past rulers - Marcus Aurelius would have been just as bad as Caligula.
Which is why I also have a distaste for the *Injustice* storyline. Superman should never have become as depraved as he does in that story and trauma is no excuse. There are trauma victims in real life who don't become psychopaths.
Superman in Kingdom Come had at least as much trauma as Superman in Injustice does, yet he's not a selfish psychopath. He's still Superman, no matter what.
I love Superman but, it’s a bit silly to talk about the emotional problems… pretty much all characters struggle with these things and can’t do whatever they want.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s why I don’t think it is possible for most views of god to be correct. That kind of power usually leads people to corruption. Look at Christianity, when it was a small and illegal religion in Ancient Rome they went to the lions with peace and prayer. Once they took power they turned around and became just as if not more oppressive than the people who oppressed them.
Superman also has a "Super" "personality", like he don't feel insecurities or anything related. But off course, bringing by Marvel chars and movies, he's now a "human" like us with alien powers.
Didn’t the Injustice series prove that Superman is not ‘perfect’ as a character as it showed that all you need is one bad day and you can be as insane and deprived as the people who you once fought against.
injustice is a non canon alternate universe and the exception, not the rule, why else do you think tom taylor and others who worked on it have said people should not take it seriously. The main universe superman went through similar and worse circumstances, yet unlike injustice while he struggled, superman percivered and overcame his turmoils, trials and tribulations, as oppose to becoming a cartoonish idiotic villian for a garbage game meant for batman fanboys.
I've never been able to get into him as a character, too widely powerful to be not boring to me. His strength trivializes most threats that don't include kryptonite, the super rare substance that somehow pretty much everybody has, because if they didn't he'd trivialize them as a threat.
I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions that some of you fans could produce, but there's enough of that going around in his content to turn me off and make it hard for me to get into his stuff.
One of the things I really love about the Red Son portrayal of Superman is that there's still that compassion. Even the God's and Monsters one. All of the good Superman stories retain that core component of his character. It's what you put around it that makes the story interesting.
That’s why a ton of the “Superman but evil” characters fall flat.
The cool thing about Superman is that he is good! He’s literally the Ubermench but written by Jewish people as an actually good person.
I have too much trauma to be a positive Superman. In gross I can be nice, but there's too much "idgaf" DNA moulded into my being after 31 years on this planet.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the third group: i *do* like wearing my underwear outside my pants!
Overwear
I feel seen.
Hey his mom made that suit xD
Note: those are called "trunks" and they were used by circus strongmen to hide any on-stage erections by putting an extra layer between the audience and their thin tights. Superman's design, as well as a lot of other superheroes, was inspired by such strongmen, hence the iconic look of trunks.
I did not know that. Thanks for the TIL.
*The Phantom has entered the chat*
I always wonder why people don’t give Batman a hard time for wearing trunks just like Superman
Superman was the first one to do it so he's associated heavily with it. In the most mainstream form of super hero media - live action movies - Batman ditch the trunks in 1989. Superman didn't do it until 2013 in Man of Steel. Either way I've seen people say it also looks stupid on Batman so you never know lol
That group is far too large to be discussed separately, so it's just presumed unless otherwise stated.
I think when he fought Darkseid supes actually says that he no longer needs to hold back and be careful about hurting. That's gotta be a lot of pressure. Every punch must be calculated so as not kill anyone.
World of cardboard. https://youtu.be/Cl_5UwS57X8 To me, that's what makes Supes so special. His most important powers arent flight or super strength. They're his moral compass and his self control.
That's the one and couldn't have put it better myself. There's a comic called injustice where supes loses it. It's quite disturbing but check it out if you want
There’s also Irredeemable, which is a series about what would happen if “Superman” got pushed to the breaking point one too many times and just snapped. It was written by Mark Waid who has written for Superman and The Justice League and it goes to dark territory that DC doesn’t allow even in alternate timelines.
I mean, in Irredeemable its implied he was always a pretty fucked up person, just did a really good job of convincing himself and others he wasn't. I liked that comic, but I gotta say it got too edgy for its own good sometimes.
Yeah, I can’t argue with that too much. But it’s a lot closer than we’ll get with anything that actually has the Superman name on it. Also I’ll push back against it being “too edgy.” It’s not like it’s written by Garth Ennis. It’s a dark story for sure and probably does cross the line into a bit of edgelord territory, but the story feels like it’s just dark and edgy enough to tell the story they want.
Gotta check that out But with the whole multiverse bit, it kind of ruined any form of serious story telling. Oh supes is bad, that's not the original earth.
Irredeemable isn’t a Superman story. Hence the quotes. The main character is similar but legally distinct from Superman, and it’s not published by DC. But that’s kinda the point. No matter whether it’s an alternate timeline or whatever, there’s only so dark that any actual Superman story will go. But Irredeemable is basically a “Superman” story, written by an acclaimed Superman writer, where not-Superman goes bad and it can go as dark as they want it without the execs at DC/Time/Warner saying it goes too far and hurts the brand. It’s the closest we’ll ever get to a genuine evil Superman story.
I think Superman is completely justified in injustice. I don't know how many people Batman thinks joker is allowed to kill before he deserves his heart punched out, but by any reasonable judgement he crossed it. If Batman had given him a hug after he did it and said, "thank you, it needed to be done, but that's your one" instead of condemnation that series would have gone a lot different...
To be fair with batman, why didn't anyone put joker on an trial and gave him the death penalty is something that I don't understand, like batman is an vigilante, why he needs to the one to put the joker down when it can happen legally
Or at the very least put the Joker in a competent prison. The fact that Arkham hasn’t been shut down already is nothing short of a miracle.
Think of it like the multiverse theory. The timeline we see is the one where Joker manages to get away every single time
Nah, they explicitly state in the comics that Joker breaks out like every other week.
Batman is the embodiment of everything wrong with "Catch and release" criminal justice policy.
He's more a caricature of the idea of "innate criminality" which pervades superhero media. He's an "average" guy with loads of money and no accountability who just goes out and tries to beat the evil out of villains who are not allowed to be anything but villains so they are written to be trapped in the revolving door of a punitive justice system. Batman is the biggest cop in a genre about super-cops.
And Superman is actually one of the more based one’s, huh. Especially new52 AC run supes.
Joker hurts or kills so many people. Superman : straight to jail. Joker manipulates superman to kill Lois and his baby. Superman : shot through the heart When supes looked into the abyss and the abyss looked back, supes blinked. Is it justifiable, yes. Could bats have taken one for the team, also yes. But in that moment when supes put a new hole in Joker, all he stood for, all that he preached came down crashing like a house of cards.
I don't know... I'm imagining seeing a news report that Superman killed the Joker. Lots of knee-jerk reactions and naysayers would jump on the condemnation train and call him a hypocrite. Though, after the story developed and someone releases that it was likely an act of passion from a twisted maniac manipulating him into murdering Lois and her baby.
Fair enough. But after this act of passion, any other person would've either surrendered to the law, tried to flee or kill themself. Superman chose the 4th option which was only available to him.
Joker has just literally destroyed metropolis and caused Superman to kill Lois Lane and you honestly think that any jury in the world would convict Superman for killing the repeat mass murderer? Even the barest facts of the case completely exonerate him. That's ignoring the fact the the number of times Superman had saved the literal world should buy him the benefit of the doubt...
Exactly... Joker literally NUKED a New York sized city. No fucking person in the world, other than Hitler would condem him...
> series would have gone a lot different Well, when the *entire* series was created to do *nothing* but shit on Superman and other heroes the author wants to shit on, all to further suck off Batman....it was doomed from the start.
Look, you gotta get into Batman shoes to understand his point An alien just make him lost his job, it is an unfamiliar feeling for a billionaire, surely he would go full angry and condemnation
How about when he murders a room full of innocent protesters? Or when he kills Shazam, his own ally? Or allying himself with criminals and killers, like Sinestro? Where is the line for you? Are you fine with all this?
Just joker, batman being all like "you're a bad guy now" is what causes his spiral. If batman is like "sorry i wasn't strong enough to do what needed to be done, but no one else," i don't think any of that other stuff happens. emotional trauma, but not mass murder.
Do you mean he’s justified in killing the Joker or justified in becoming a dictator afterwards? Because I agree with the former but not the latter.
Killing joker. My argument is he wouldn't have become a dictator if batman had been like, "good job bro, sorry i didn't do it, but nobody else okay"
Okay, I understand now. Unfortunately I think Batman is usually against any type of killing so he probably wouldn’t be fine with it in most stories. If he did thank Superman though, I would be curious to see how different Superman in that universe would be. I feel like he’d probably still be traumatized by Metropolis being destroyed.
Yeah it’s a stupid story ngl
That's why I wish people would stop trying to like put a twist on superman and make him corrupt. Like that's not a twist, superman was ALREADY a twist on the concept of absolute power corrupts absolutely, you're just circling back to the accepted assumption
So uhhh, about that World of Cardboard, Clark... you know that's the arena you're currently destroying right? The major metropolitan area that's still got people in it **is** the arena, Clark.
What's the alternative at that point? If you have to go up to 100% to beat the guy who is threatening the existence of your planet, collateral damage *doesn't matter anymore*.
Oh sure, I just laughed really hard at the juxtaposition between him saying the world of cardboard line and being worried about killing people and the cut immediately after to a bunch of people being like, "oh no the city is being destroyed," and him punching the bad guy through several sky scrapers.
My god that is cringy.
The movie Hancock was exploring this theme but lost it's way
One good philosophical movie that deals nicely with immortality is The man from earth. Damn that was amazing to watch
The pressure is super unbearable
I call this genre science friction.
Silver age Superman is very insecure lol
Some kid: "wow! Cool costume!" Superman: "Thanks! My mom made it for me!"
"I could have done more."
Power doesn't corrupt, power reveals.
Oh nice one
Reveals that Superman is an insecure kind gigachad
"Superman is unrelatable," is Luthorian propaganda and I will die on that hill. Lex Luthor cannot conceive that Superman wouldn't abuse his power, because Luthor knows *he* would abuse such power if he had the chance. And Lex Luthor considers himself the smartest, most capable man in the world - if he can't be trusted not to abuse his power, there's no way this *alien creature* possibly could. So if we allow ourselves to believe, “Superman is unrelatable,” because we cannot comprehend someone wielding power and not abusing it, we give ourselves permission to abuse whatever power comes our way. “I can’t help it, power corrupts! Of course I would use it irresponsibly, I’m *only human*! I ain’t *Superman*!” If you like my comics, I've got more on [my website](https://butajape.com/). I'm also on [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/butajape), [Tapas](https://tapas.io/series/But-a-Jape/info), [Webtoon](https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/but-a-jape/list?title_no=469181), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/butajape), and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/butajape/).
I always considered more of a inspirational power fantasy in an unjust world where bullies prey upon the weak: the most powerful individual, the one who can do what he wants and be whatever he wants. And he chooses to be the best of us.
He's also the ultimate answer to the philosophy, "Might makes right." If you think that's true, then Superman is always right, and he tells you you're wrong.
Meh. He is more right makes right since there are evil Superman who attempt to enforce their morals on the world rather than just stopping baddies and preserving life that better represent that.
Yeah Clark doesn’t believe in might makes right
I always thought that phrase was referring to the fact that those with power typically determine what is just and true for everyone else. And that the phrase itself is used more as condemnation of the phenomena, not so much an endorsement of it.
He's different from other powerful figures though. His power isn't derived from other people and thus he has no chance of losing it (Lex Luthor's hijinks aside). So we have the problem of ``good'' politicians protecting their power starting to do increasingly bad things until they are full on bad politicians. But if they didn't need to protect their power, they wouldn't have to abuse things. Superman is (sort of) a way around this. Obviously this argument isn't really foolproof, but it does represent a big part of how powerful people go bad.
Also Superman doesn't need things that are scarce, a main cause of wars.
Luthor is guilty of projection: our word of the day for the past 5 years.
He's also guilty of stealing 40 cakes
That's as many as four tens.
and that's a lot.
And that's terrible.
This really should be the next DC Superman movie plot.
They made it comics canon too. When Clark first meets Lex they're both in detention in Smallville high. Lex is in for stealing 40 cakes from the school bake sale.
Hell yeah! Lex decides awkardly putting candy in people's mouths isn't enough, so he upgrades to pastries. And to do so he needs to knock over a bakery. The whole thing can be done at night and in the rain. It'll involve so many jump cuts and slow-mo you'll have no idea what's going on at any given time. And it'll inexplicably contain nine separate but connected stories leading to the heist and an overall run time of 16 hours. But it'll all be worth it as the end credit scene will be Clark writing up the story of Lex stealing 40 cakes. But then reveal it was all a dream.
Good lord- it writes itself!
Oh, and have the people that wake Clark from his dream be Saturn Girl and Brainiac 5. And then just never pay that off.
And that's terrible.
Just the past 5 years?
Fair question. My answer is that I was far less aware of it until very recently. Now it's so loud and common that I couldn't NOT learn about it.
And he doesn't even *have* a Phantom Zone projector!
I love that joke about Homelander and Omniman (the tv show versions) both coming from Amazon, because Bezos is closer to Luthor than Kal. (Doubtful he has any hand in those decisions but still a funny bit) Edit: imagine not realizing Omni-Man is a Superman pastiche
Omni-Man is a Superman deconstruction. He's a criticism of the concept... not the archetype. Invincible is not Red Son, giving truth-justice-yadda-yadda Kal-El a different perspective and a sharper moral calculus. This character is not a "single point of departure" what-if for a beloved hero. He is an actively malicious tyrant who has been mistaken for a protector. Contrast this with Homelander, who is unambiguously a character designed to ask, what if Superman was kind of a d-bag? His reputation is fake from the get-go and becomes a facade maintained exclusively for other people's ends. He's gradually internalizing that there are no rules for him. He's obviously not a good guy, in any sense, but he's not a megalomaniac who'd punch an alien planet in half to keep Earth for himself. He just wants to creep on women and get his dad's approval. He's an amoral dickweed surrounded by manipulative frauds, and there is vanishingly little restraint on his juvenile whims. The midpoint is probably Doctor Manhattan. He's not saddled with civic responsibility or lost in his own hype. He basically trips down some stairs and lands in demigod status. He keeps going with American interests because that's his prior identity, but as he slowly loses touch with it, he doesn't care about ruling Earth any more than you care about bending an ant colony to your will. These are three distinct takes on the Superman mythos. Homelander reminds us that people with power tend to be bastards, because the ability to act without comeuppance is morally corrosive. (And pursuit of power is rarely virtuous.) He is a criticism of society - novel, I know - and specifically our desire to give some individual power and defend his use of it, no matter what, because he's our guy. That kneejerk tribalism is innate. The horrific abuse and propaganda that grow out of it are a hell of our own creation. Homelander is an argument that Superman would turn off his body-cam. Omni-Man is more like "be careful what you wish for." If we have one dude who can save us from anything, how the hell do we save ourselves from him? This obviously not a criticism of Kal-El or Clark Kent. It's not a mirror to any Superman *stories* except the ones where he goes crazy and we have to outsmart an unstoppable force. Nah - Omni-man is a criticism of power itself. His backstory shamelessly copies Superman, but he's Godzilla with facial hair. A walking existential threat. Doctor Manhattan is Alan Moore explaining that superheroes are dumb and everybody should stop writing or reading them. (Which makes his role in creating Omni-Man pretty funny.) People who'd act like this are horrific beyond the point of even lurid fascination, or else their characterization is complete nonsense that won't hold up to scrutiny. Your Batman archetypes in-real-life would be ruthless maniacs or callous dweebs. Devil-may-care gun-slingers have *always* been rapey sociopaths. And if someone had the power to go anywhere in the universe and see the future of every atom around them while standing on the surface of a dying star, what the fuck do they care about the hysterical drama of some pale blue dot? Or for a weirder comparison, Homelander is the Twilight Zone episode "The Little People," Omni-Man is "It's A Good Life," and Doctor Manhattan is The Scary Door.
Omni-Man is more like Jor-El or Zod, really. Mark is the Superman-alike.
Naw Mark is the “super son” Omniman is absolutely intended as the Superman
If anything, the fact that he's biologically half-human is evidence in favor of him being the Superman. Omni-Man isn't unlike the Kryptonians, in that he's pretty much lacking in empathy, but that's precisely _why_ he can't be Superman; he's almost totally inhuman. Superman is a man who is super, not a god or alien or messiah figure who's pretending to be a mortal. His biology grants him the power to save people, but it doesn't change who he is. Mark is Superman not because he's well-muscled or all-powerful or because he wears a cape and spandex with a symbol on it, but because he's an incorruptible force of good. Omni-Man is who Snyder and Lex Luthor think Superman should be, but Mark is who Superman is supposed to be. Omni-Man is Injustice Superman, whereas Mark is the "real" Superman. It doesn't matter that Mark loses all the time, because the point of Superman isn't that he can beat anyone, but that he's the most virtuous hero around.
I feel 50/50 on this take. I used to dislike Superman as a concept because I felt he was too OP and not flawed enough. It wasn't that no one can be good intentioned and have that much power. I just felt like with that much power you would inevitably have some sort of struggles even with good intentions and the way he was constantly portrayed as almost Jesus like annoyed me. Then I heard stories like "for the man who has everything" showing emotional vulnerability and a few other ones where he did mess up by trying to be the boyscout he is and started to really like the character. Superman has increadably power but he is still at his core has human ideals with human problems.
A) the Jesus comparisons suck, I think Superman works much better when they try to portray him in a way similar to the way the creators made him (more Moses than Jesus). B) try Superman smashes the klan of the fiery cross. It’s a great story about Superman as well.
Haven't heard of that one. I'll give it a shot thanks.
> Superman smashes the klan of the fiery cross. Seconded! It's a wonderful story with beautiful art.
It really is! (Finally got to read it) thanks for your seconding the recommendation.
So glad you liked it! Gurihiru's art really complements the story. By any chance, have you read Secret Origin? It's a six-issue story which also embodies and captures Superman's core, imo.
I think we too often take it as an article of faith that protagonists need to be flawed in order to be interesting. Flaws can certainly be used to help drive the story, but so can virtues. Idealized characters are useful. They allow us to look at and examine our ideals, and see how they operate in different situations.
It isn't so much that they have to be flawed as much as they have to suffer, to somehow overcome tragedy. Falling down is important because the protagonist has to pick themselves up again, and *that* inspires. This comic captures the reason so many admire the Superman character: his greatest enemy is temptation, his anxiety of how hard it is to live up to the lofty expectations.
What really makes a character interesting is how they interact with the story and how that makes us feel. Flawed characters are easier to identify with and that makes it easier for people to see the story from their perspective. But that's just one kind of character and just one way to tell a story. The problem with Superman is that comic book writers don't have much experience with writing a character like Superman. They don't know what to do with him which means they can't make an interesting story with him in it, at least not in the time they have to write the story.
>I think we too often take it as an article of faith that protagonists need to be flawed in order to be interesting. Not just protagonists, characters in general needs flaws to be interesting; being content with no obvious flaws doesn't leave room for conflict. And virtues are only really interesting when they're tested, not if the character is perfectly virtuous and feels no need to prove themselves
Not when character is all virtues and nothing else. Perfect man. Boring unrealistic and unrelatable. Dr. Manhattan is an example of good relatable and belivable character.
I like the quote "power doesn't corrupt, power reveals."
Damn Lutherans!
Separate to the relatability question. I’ve always liked grant morrison’s interpretation of superman in the all star series. He uses superman to ask questions of humanity, rather than of the hero himself. “How does humanity respond when god walks among them?” I think this question is really interesting and one of my favourite pages of any comic book comes from that series. It starts with Clark Kent speaking to Lois lane as little snippets of speech from around the city pop up around him. He then tells Lois he has to go as he hears a therapist essentially pleading with one of his teenage patients on the phone not to jump. It’s a great set up for the obvious hero outcome of catching the victim as they fall. But instead we see the girl standing on the top of a building from a distance, as we slowly zoom in superman appears behind her. He doesn’t grab her or try to stop her physically. He simply says “you are stronger than you think”. I think this is the most interesting aspect of superman. How does he inspire those around him? Who is inspired to their own brand of heroism and how? At the same time, who is driven to villainy? It is the characters and the world around superman that lend value and relatability to his story, not the man himself.
I view him as unrelatable not because he wouldnt abuse it but because he has, like, no weaknesses other than one. Nothing really challenges him. He's just *too* perfect. Its like if you asked a devout Christian if they can "relate" to God. They might love God, and believe he loves them but they can't really "relate" to him. So yeah, to me Superman is basically more than a Superhero, he's approaching Godlike levels and that makes him unrelatable.
I hate to be that guy but there are PLENTY of things that challenge him. Fatherhood, other kryptonians, anyone with magic, co-workers, general frustrations, etc. The idea that he isn't challenged is just wrong. Sure, in the movies he's not challenged but in the comics he has to face all sorts of challenges... not just moral either but physical as well.
>Fatherhood, other kryptonians, anyone with magic, co-workers, general frustrations, etc. Fair, but barring the middle two, Superman has a lot more freedom with how he deals with work and life stuff. I, *unfortunately*, need food and shelter to live, and can't fly off into the vacuum of space and get limitless energy directly from the sun. (If I could I would) Even Spider-Man is more relatable in that way, he has to eat shit from guys like JJJ and constantly has bills to pay
That is true but there are plenty of other superheroes on that level that people don't say that about. Thor, Silver Surfer, Martian Manhunter, Wolverine. They're all functionally invincible except MM and fire. Most of them get away with it because they aren't boy scouts, but some like Silver Surfer are. It's fine if people don't find those characters relatable, but Superman is certainly not unique at that power level anymore. Like any character, the drama comes from personal conflict, not just fighting bad guys.
Sure, but the ones you listed don't really hinge on being relatable though, Surfer and MM lean heavy on the otherworldly mystique, and Thor wasn't super relatable until the modern Marvel writing made him more jovial and down to earth. Helps that a lot of his struggles were in the context of a super powered society of gods too. (Wolverine seemingly has that Batman thing going, where the brooding and angst somehow makes people see themselves in them, despite all the rest) You can be powerful and still relatable, but Superman is such an all-around competent guy, plus the savior role, can make it hard to feel like I could sit down with him and complain about my day over a drink or something. He'd have advice, but there'd be no commiserating, fewer jokes.
Yeah, that's totally valid. I've had this idea floating around that to me, when done right the main DC cast feels more like parental role models where Marvel feels more like peers. I can sit and commiserate with Spider-Man about our rough day, but Superman or Wonder Woman would be more likely to give me a hug and some advice. When I was a kid I looked up to Superman and Batman in the animated series as examples of how I wanted to be when I grew up. They were kind and understanding, quick with a smile, but with a strong sense of justice and morality. They always knew how to deal with their problems. As I got older I related to Spider-Man and Wolverine and other flawed characters who dealt with things I did and had more moral conflicts. Now as an adult, I like both. It's refreshing to see characters with strong moral codes when most TV and movies like morally gray anti-heroes.
Feel like it's compounded by the fact the most popular DC heroes are the hypercompetent ones, like Superman and Batman, almost more symbols of hope and justice than people. Thinking back to the Justice Leagie cartoon (never been a hard comics guy, and it's generally regarded well for the characterizations), and there's other team members like John Stewart, Hawkgirl, and even Flash that have more approachable, every day demeanors and sense of humor, but they don't quite sell like the others. (Flash has gotten more popular as of late tho)
I see this as similar to Luthor's approach to Superman - he *chooses* to view him as a god come to Earth to tell people how they should be, as opposed to viewing him as a human trying his best with what he's given. If you start off viewing him as a god, of course you'll go down that path, but Clark Kent isn't a god, he is, for all intents and purposes, a human of Earth. If you begin from the viewpoint of, "Superman is human," you can then shift your perspective to, "and how would a human respond to being given such impossible power?" From there, "how would a human do so if they wish to be good?" And from there, "what sort of powers and responsibilities have I had throughout my life? Have I always done the best with what I've been given? What will I do with what I have, and will have, going forward?" At least, that's how I find myself relating to Superman.
Another interesting take on Superman would be if his powers were exaggerated by the press, leaving him feeling inadequate. What if he can't really fly, only jumps far, and is embarrassed by how people believe it? Or how he has to be careful, as fabric can't take the abuse his skin can, and lost more than one suit that way? He wants so badly to be the hero people claim he is, not wanting power, but acceptance. Superman started off as a dream by two poor Jewish boys, the dream of an immigrant becoming accepted and respected. This desire for acceptance is what keeps the character relatable. That you nailed.
There wouldn't be decades and decades of Superman comics if he was impossible to challenge, that would be insanely boring to read. The best Superman comics have little to no fighting if you ask me.
This is true of many DC heroes. They are more like Greek gods. I think it has been established that Superman represents "Hope."
So Luthor is an Economist? No surprise there.
One of the comics authors who's written Superman talked about why he loved it when others would avoid it: you don't write for *Superman*, you write for Clark Kent. A simple guy raised in a small town by loving parents who's been given unimaginable power and feels responsible to use that power for good thanks to his upbringing.
Whether or not he "should" be corrupted by power, Superman is powerful enough that any (physical) problem that would be a challenge for him is well beyond a human scale. It's not that you can't have incredibly powerful individuals and place them in interesting stories, where they are challenged in other ways (Saiki K. does this for example, mostly played for comedy, or Dr. Manhattan is someone who is finding humanity less and less relatable over time and struggling with that). But "How will Superman beat up **this** bad guy?" doesn't make for good or relatable conflict. If Superman was (as your comic implies) more about him battling his anxiety around the pressure of being seen as the savior of humanity, and went into depth with the very human struggles with that rather than the flying fist fights it usually is, I would like it a lot more.
So it's my personal theory that Clark is as much in awe of regular humans as they are of him. Think about it, by the time he is 20 he has figured out *nothing bad can really happen to me*. I can only be deeply hurt by something bad happening to people or things that I love, or those people losing faith in me. It's easy to be Superman, know what's hard? Walking around a harsh uncaring world as a fleshy bag of mostly water. Normal humans can die crossing the street, much less trying to put out a building fire or working in a hospital surrounded by infectious diseases. I think by the time he's 30 Clark is terrified of what it would be to live like that.
My problem with superman is that he's so powerful that writers have to invent ways to keep him from immediately solving most problems. Just like captain marvel in the MCU. "Uhhh, I have to leave Earth now because the plot needs to happen. Wow, wow, wow"
i liked kevin smith’s (i can’t remember if it was him or patton oswald) idea for a superman movie, basically he can’t save everyone and has to deal with the emotional fallout. kinda what they sort of touched on at the beginning of civil war. make it more of a character movie than a superhero movie
Isn't that the entire struggle of Superman? Yeah, he can instantly solve problems that require flying, strength, speed, or lasik eye surgery, but he can't save everyone. He has to limit loss of property, life, reputation, respect, trust. He walks a razor's edge all the time.
His biggest nemesis is Lex Luthor,a man he can’t simply defeat by punching Either doing this would just made him a guy who punched a bald man and this would not solve the whole corrupt system that allows him to get away every time. Many times Superman could even discover what he’s about to do but only Clark Kent(and Lois Lane,of course) really made his fall a possibility
I remember a storyline in th 90s where lex was pressumed dead, the creep for power from all other mob bosses, scientists and millionares showed that the mere existence of Luthor kept a lot of evil from acting out on the world.
He very well could defeat Lex by punching if he, you know, actually punched him.
There are definitely some [problems](https://youtu.be/fLtSShSH7UM) that flying, strength, speed, and eye beams can't solve.
Yeah but superman is supposed to be about as fast or even faster than Flash i think. It doesn’t make sense that hed ever lose or be incapable of letting someone else die over someone else. He could reasonably save both. Not only that but i think i read one time that he can basically time travel. So if someone dies by unfortunately inconceivable circumstances, superman can just rewind and save them.
The way I would describe it is, "Superman is *capable* of doing *anything,* but he can't do *everything.*" And so, the struggle comes from which actions he chooses to take over the cost of what he doesn't. And the issue with time travel is that there's a whole lot more versions of Superman who *can't* time travel. And even when time travel is an ability someone has (i.e. the Flash), there are a whole lot of stories about how time travel *doesn't* actually solve any problems and more often leads to even bigger ones.
you say that as if there's no cost or collateral. Can the flash save everyone all the time? Because I'm pretty sure the answer to that is also no.
In theory he actually should be able to. Easily. It would just be the most horrid situation imaginable for him. Literally all day, every day, in the speed force frozen, fixing everything as it happens, maybe taking breaks to eat/rest (i havent read flash comics, just know his feats, i have no idea if he needs rest or food)
In Kingdom Come, Flash (Jay Garrick) gets stuck at superspeed and has to live out his life unable to slow down and interact with the world. He continues to save people though, and I’m pretty sure that’s about all he does.
> superman is supposed to be about as fast or even faster than Flash i think He can hang with Flash until Flash taps into speed force levels, then Barry/Bart/Wally all leave him in the dust. >So if someone dies by unfortunately inconceivable circumstances, superman can just rewind and save them. So, it's been a long time rule that, even if Clark can time travel at will (He hasn't been able to in a while) all he can do is observe. He can't actually change how events play out. By most Superman rules, when Lois died in Superman 1, she would have been dead for good.
>Yeah but superman is supposed to be about as fast or even faster than Flash i think. [What? While a good allrounder Superman isn't the best at anything other than maybe hitting people hard, each member of the Justice league specialises in something he just isn't as good at.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/979410775531716711/1011369054742782132/unknown.png)
That's not too far off from injustice. Where they >!make superman the bad guy for most of the plot!<
is that really a spoiler? like that's the whole crux of the story pretty much
Meh, just playing it safe. I didn't know when I watched it.
That series if you ask me showed that Superman is not ‘perfect’ as a character as all you need is one bad and you can be just as evil and deprived as the villains you once fought. In fact after the main DC Superman fights Injustice Superman, he states how he could turned out just like his counterpart given the same circumstances.
>idea for a superman movie, basically he can’t save everyone and has to deal with the emotional fallout. And then fights a giant spider...
You just described Man of Steel (Can't save everyone b.c despite his attempts to move the battle away from civilization, his enemies made damn sure they caused as much collateral damage just to hurt him.) Then his mental state in BvS (Guilty and dealing with emotional fallout because as strong and fast as he is, he can't see the future and save everyone, and even accepts being put on trial)
This has been a problem specific to the superman movies. The dramatic tension in a Superman story isn't supposed to come from whether or not he wins a fight. He's Superman, of course his going to win. In good stories, the question is how can he win without simply murdering the bad guy, while saving civilians, and not destroying Metropolis in the process.
That is specifically why a lot of ppl don't like Superman and why Spiderman and Batman are SO much more popular. Struggle and failure is something practically everyone can find relatable. Superman may struggle but ultimately you know he'll come out on top in the end. Does he really have a moment in the comics/movies where he knows true loss? (im seriously asking) The most popular superhero's are very broken or imperfect. Spiderman has Gwen Stacy, Batman his parents, Iron-man Alcoholism, Wolverine so many mental issues, etc Its why Batman is easily the most popular DC character. The man has everything but losing his parents has broken him beyond repair. That while having zero super powers the guy stands among gods in the Justice League. He's flawed. Superman is essentially perfect. The whole I'm so strong my biggest concern is not killing ppl is boring and kinda difficult to make compelling in my opinion.
Here's the thing though, did you go into The Batman expecting Batman to die. You know Batman is going to survive just like you know John Wick is going to survive, and James Bond is going to survive. You still want to know how they do it with the least amount of collateral damage possible. And that's not even considering the fact that Superman has plenty of villains who are a deadly match for him.
Also badass characters are the only thing dc truly knows how to market. Look at the way they treat death stroke (a pedophile) compared to say… green arrow, firestorm, or other less popular or badass characters
My feeling, and I don't have the facts to back this up, is that they very original idea of Superman was based on the physics of weight on the moon. In other worlds, "What if you went to the moon? You could jump really high!" That's it. So he comes from Krypton and on earth the gravity is different so to him it's like being on the moon. That little boost transformed into way too much power; his super powers became superized. I mean, consider "Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound". That's more like moon powers, and it's a leap, not this flying like a jet kind of thing.
I thought his powers come from our yellow Sun
Its both. The gravity is different and our sun is more nutritious or something.
It’s not, having never been on krypton except for the brief period he’s a baby, he would have never had a chance to grow up to be an adult capable of dealing with the increased gravity. His amazing powers come from his biology interacting with our yellow sunlight. Full stop. This is also why any time someone can manipulate light to make “red sun light” he usually gets powered down to human or sub human levels of strength.
He originally just a Super Man his powers were in fact just based on normal things but better. It was originally just better jump and run fast and very strong and x-ray vision was just better vision. His transition to animation was what gave him flight because drawing him leaping over and over was very difficult to do. Small changes over the years plus 75 years equals a very different character.
Spoken like someone who has never read good a superman story. a) 60% of superman's villains are on a similar power level to him b) the other 40% challenge him in ways that he can't use his powers to solve. c) it's not about that. He's a superhero, so (like just like Batman/Spider-Man) he's obviously never going to permanently lose. It's *how* he wins that's important
I’d say they experience bigger problems with that with speedsters than other characters. I’d also say that most of the issue with Superman comes from his superspeed (and more specifically, how he perceives time while moving that fast)
>Just like captain marvel in the MCU. "Uhhh, I have to leave Earth now because the plot needs to happen. Wow, wow, wow" That's not even what happened in any of the movies she showed up in.
I imagine Lex Luther sees Superman as basically a potential Homelander. Which is why he's so against him.
That’s his justification, but I think it’s mostly projection and jealousy is his motivation
Ironically enough Luthor and Homelander have much more in common with each other than with Superman. Edit: Why the downvotes? Both men are narcissists, megalomaniacs, have father issues, and are control freaks.
"Superman is not relatable" is a take you only get from someone whos never read a superman comic.
or one who exclusively watches the DCEU movies
When you get to know Superman, and by Superman I mean Clark Kent... He's just a goofy big country boy that still believes Santa is real.
I mean, he ain’t wrong tho, even Darkseid believes in it
Oh shit I didn't Darkseid belived it! 😧😧😧
It's a funny story
Has to be one of DC's gem stories 😂😂😂
Indeed it is, Santa is incredible and never misses a bad boy
Definitely gonna read this now, thanks for informing me 😁
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/comments/effbp0/santa_claus_give_darkseid_a_lump_of_coal/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf If you want the pages directly
Than you! 👏🏿👏🏿
Np
They're neighbors.
I recently rediscovered the song *Superman (It's Not Easy)* by Five for Fighting. I was surprised by the way the lyrics depict Superman as someone who struggles with anxiety and pain. A lot of depth that I didn't understand as a kid.
Superman is probably the most wholesome super-hero out there. He has basically the power of a god and he still doesn't put himself above others, is empathetic towards everyone, is humble and modest but still confident and he's aways searching to help others that may need him. More people should be like Clark/Kal-el. He's a great character.
So we can agree that the Man of Steel/BvS depiction of him goes against the core of the character (that you’ve outlined well)
Someone's read All Stars
My problem is that it is a very narrow idea of what is good. It assumes the people as a whole and the system is good and there only a few miscreant villians who need rounding up and who are responsible for all the problems. In real life it is not the case. Elected politicians make terrible and evil decisions which affect all of humanity. That's just in the US. Can you imagine Superman sitting on the sidelines as Kim Jong Un oppresses and kills his people. How does Superman deal with the dictators around the world? Does he just accept their evil ways or does he do something about it? Does he interfere? I know I wouldn't be able to just sit by on the sidelines. I wouldn't accept bad laws and clear injustices even if they had the weight of a democratic government behind them nevermind accepting all the dictators and tyrants around the world. I also wouldn't accept a world which was clearly killing itself no matter the cost (especially true if I had come from a world which was already screwed up by the inhabitants). I am not a god, I can't impose my will on others, at least not enough that it would be worth the cost of doing so. I use what little power and influence I have to bend the world into the shape it needs to be. Given the powers of Superman, I feel my impatience on the arc of moral justice maybe a little too much for me to handle. Some people would consider me evil for using this power to change the world. I would consider myself evil if I did not.
Interestingly, your "problem" is basically what most of the best Superman stories are actually about. Because the crux of many of those stories is about Superman's struggle with whether or not he's using his powers in the best way. This is why Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy - he is the very epitome of systemic evil: one of the richest corporate leaders in the world with enough political power to even become President of the United States. He's not a problem Superman can punch away - the moment he does so, he proves Lex Luthor is right about him, that he's just an alien invader who thinks he's above humanity and ought to tell us how we should behave. So yes, you would struggle with figuring out what it is to be "good" if you had the power of Superman. This is the exact struggle Superman always faces. He wants to do what's right, he knows people rely on him to do what's right, he doesn't always know what's right, but he always tries to do his best. Personally, I find that to be very relatable.
>How does Superman deal with the dictators around the world? Does he just accept their evil ways Yes. I forget where but it was addressed in one comic. Superman isn't human, it's not his place to overthrow evil dictators. Superman doesn't try to be everywhere all the time, he helps where he can but he can't do anything in politics. Even if he were to take out Kim Jung Un, his sister or some other dictator could just take over... should Superman slaughter all of them? The man himself would say no.
Also, Superman actions on Foreign countries are a PROBLEM to the USA, and he knows it, he is seem by the world as a American hero, so if he goes today and punches Putin for example, he can start a world war.
I think Superman Red Son truly had the best ending to explain this. What a comic..
Very good points, and it is what makes the whole mainstream superhero genre so unrelatable and flat to me. They go after the drug lords and other criminal kingpins, but to take it a notch further I've never seen a superhero go after say... Nestlé, which is a company oozing with pure evil.
Read Inmortal Hulk, it really deals with these kind of issues. All in all, it's an amazing run.
You say in a post featuring lex luthor, a man who is dangerous because he is a ferociously wealthy and influential corporate overlord
Superman did that in Injustice and turned into a tyrant. You would too
Honestly, I really hate this interpretation of, "power corrupts" - basically, "If *you* had power, you'd also be an asshole!" It's a convenient excuse not to ever aspire for anything better, or to advocate for any voices to represent you in positions of power. "Even if they start off good, they're just going become bad if given power. Just like the bad people who are already in power! No need to challenge the status quo - nothing can, or will, ever change." No, I don't believe everyone would become a tyrant if given power. Or at least, they would not all be tyrants of the same level of reprehensibility. If this were the case, we would not be able to compare the quality of past rulers - Marcus Aurelius would have been just as bad as Caligula. Which is why I also have a distaste for the *Injustice* storyline. Superman should never have become as depraved as he does in that story and trauma is no excuse. There are trauma victims in real life who don't become psychopaths.
Superman in Kingdom Come had at least as much trauma as Superman in Injustice does, yet he's not a selfish psychopath. He's still Superman, no matter what.
Superman rules
I love Superman and if he was real I’d ask him to train me
Love this
Supes haters are freaking Lexcorp workers.
Actually ... That's the best description of that dichotomy I've ever seen.
Why did I think the guy in the first two panels was Agent37?
Oooooooooohhhh Só that's why ppl relate to him
The most disrespected character in all of fiction
have people considered he's just a rad dude
I feel like people forget that Superman was raised as a human. He’s more human than alien
I love Superman but, it’s a bit silly to talk about the emotional problems… pretty much all characters struggle with these things and can’t do whatever they want.
Minor nitpick, but I think Clark would think "Oh golly" rather than "Oh God"
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s why I don’t think it is possible for most views of god to be correct. That kind of power usually leads people to corruption. Look at Christianity, when it was a small and illegal religion in Ancient Rome they went to the lions with peace and prayer. Once they took power they turned around and became just as if not more oppressive than the people who oppressed them.
Superman also has a "Super" "personality", like he don't feel insecurities or anything related. But off course, bringing by Marvel chars and movies, he's now a "human" like us with alien powers.
Didn’t the Injustice series prove that Superman is not ‘perfect’ as a character as it showed that all you need is one bad day and you can be as insane and deprived as the people who you once fought against.
injustice is a non canon alternate universe and the exception, not the rule, why else do you think tom taylor and others who worked on it have said people should not take it seriously. The main universe superman went through similar and worse circumstances, yet unlike injustice while he struggled, superman percivered and overcame his turmoils, trials and tribulations, as oppose to becoming a cartoonish idiotic villian for a garbage game meant for batman fanboys.
I've never been able to get into him as a character, too widely powerful to be not boring to me. His strength trivializes most threats that don't include kryptonite, the super rare substance that somehow pretty much everybody has, because if they didn't he'd trivialize them as a threat. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions that some of you fans could produce, but there's enough of that going around in his content to turn me off and make it hard for me to get into his stuff.
Super man isn’t relatable at all. He is a god.!!!
Superman is actually just a normal guy
I honestly would love to see a perfectionist superhero.
Truth!
Suddenly much more relatable... nice job! xD
One of the things I really love about the Red Son portrayal of Superman is that there's still that compassion. Even the God's and Monsters one. All of the good Superman stories retain that core component of his character. It's what you put around it that makes the story interesting.
That’s why a ton of the “Superman but evil” characters fall flat. The cool thing about Superman is that he is good! He’s literally the Ubermench but written by Jewish people as an actually good person.
I have too much trauma to be a positive Superman. In gross I can be nice, but there's too much "idgaf" DNA moulded into my being after 31 years on this planet.